We can’t always sell weapons to people we like

It saddens me to watch my successor as minister of Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Dion, attacked and criticized over the sale to Saudi Arabia of light armoured vehicles manufactured in London, Ontario.

The minister and his colleagues are, of course, right to say that the sale was negotiated and approved before they assumed office. The fact that the minister’s signature was required on the final export permits in no way contradicts the reality that to have refused to sign those permits would have breached a contract previously entered into by the Government of Canada.

If I sign an agreement to sell my house, the transaction is not completed until the day I sign the papers transferring ownership of the property to the buyer. But if I refuse to do the latter, I am clearly in breach of my prior agreement.

Beyond the contractual obligation, there are plenty of reasons to support the sale of these light armoured vehicles.

First, the defence industry is a key driver of economic activity and an important source of high-value employment. The sector encompasses more than 650 firms, supports more than 65,000 full-time jobs across the country and contributes an estimated $6 billion a year to our country’s GDP. Exports account for half of Canada’s total defence industry revenues.

Some people would prefer that we not be in the arms business at all. But not only does this industry supply some of our own defence and security requirements, it supplies our allies as well.

Should we adopt a policy of refusing to trade with people whose values are out of line with our own? Regrettably, that might leave us with a rather limited number of potential customers.

Whether one believes that Canada should offer its forces only in support of peacekeeping (a view I don’t happen to share), or should play a more robust role in global affairs, our armed forces plainly need vehicles, uniforms and ordinance to carry out their duties.

Given that requirement, it stands to reason that Canadians should want to design and manufacture this equipment — and if we’re doing so, the economics of scale dictate exporting those same products.

Second, Canada has long had interests in the region. Our armed forces have served there. Some 23 fallen Canadian soldiers and peacekeepers are buried in the Commonwealth Gaza War Cemetery near Gaza City.

It’s often said that countries don’t have friends — they have interests. Canada has an obvious interest in stability in a region in which regime change has, to say the least, not gone well in recent years. A strong Saudi Arabia, balancing Iran and its regional allies, is not a bad thing. Conversely, if you dislike the current government of Saudi Arabia (and there are good reasons to do so), you had better ask yourself who and what might replace it.

Third, as a mature country, we have to be able to deal with governments and regimes with which we do not always agree. The world is full of countries that do not share our values and beliefs. Should we adopt a policy of refusing to trade with people whose values are out of line with our own? Regrettably, that might leave us with a rather limited number of potential customers.

Canada, it should be pointed out, is not supplying the Saudis with equipment that can be used in torture or persecution of women. We are selling military vehicles — basically fancy trucks — of the sort that are required by any country’s armed forces, and which we happen to be good at making.

Finally, I find myself wondering whether the people who are now loudly proclaiming that we should block the sale of military vehicles to the Saudis are being equally vigorous in their support of a pipeline from Alberta to the East Coast — a pipeline that would reduce and perhaps end our dependence on oil imports from that same country. Somehow, I doubt it.

In my judgement, selling light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia is good for Canada and Canadian workers, and fully justifiable on moral grounds.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.